Everyone gather around. Confused23 front and center.

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
61

<p>Yeah, Spidermom! I agree!<br>
It certainly appears that more could be done toward the development of hydrogen power. And why hasn't there been a huge movement toward solar power?? (Could there be lobbyists at work here to thwart progress in those areas?? Hmmm. I wonder...).</p>

<p>You're right - remaining dependent on Middle East Oil makes no sense, especially when other viable energy sources are available. </p>

<p>Anyway Spidermom, I try to chime in w/ something positive if I can & I just wanted to applaud your idea - it's a good one. Now if we can just get the leadership & populace in this country to move forward on more/faster development of these new technologies! (We can call it "The Spidermom Project"! haha!).</p>

62

<p>Whoo hoo! I like that Spidermom Project part! Hey, anybody know how the Manhattan Project got its name? I'm too lazy to Google it. </p>

<p>I'd hate to give any nooh yawkers any credit for it. Go Boston! <sorry zaphod="" :)=""></sorry></p>

63

<p>What would Willie do? As in What Would Willie Nelson do? He is investing heavily in BioDiesel.</p>

<p>I just read a paper on BioDiesel, very interesting. Apparently you can convert a Diesel vehicle to run discarded vegetable oil for less than $1,500. A McDonald's Franchisee now runs four vehicles on his discarded vegetable oil.</p>

<p>One does have to wonder why the Administration has not been more interested in conservation, new energy sources, etc. I hate conspiracy nuts and others that believe Halliburton is running the world, but clearly some things needs to be done differently.</p>

64

<p>The Manhattan Project got its name from the US Army Corps of Engineers Manhattan Engineering District which was created to do research on atomic weapons. The Manahattan Projest was one of the best kepts secrets in government at the time and the reason the new engineering district was call Mahattan was to because it was thought to be the place least likely for anyone to think that there was anything important going on.</p>

65

<p>I, for one, would also love to tell the Arabs where to insert their oil. Sadly, however, only one power source we have right now offers any real solution.</p>

<p>Solar power isn't it. It costs more to build the solar panel than any electricity it creates.</p>

<p>It isn't hydrogen. Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but here on Earth it is almost exclusively trapped in water. In order to create hydrogen from water, you have to run a current through it. Sadly, the energy you get from hydrogen is less than the current needed to get it out of water.</p>

<p>BioDiesel is a neat trick, and certainly a good way to get rid of used vegetable oils and such, but if you think that's the solutiion, think again. We don't have enough land to produce the crops it would take to replace regular oil with vegetable oil.</p>

<p>So, what does that leave us with?</p>

<p>Drum roll, please.....</p>

<p>NUCLEAR!</p>

<p>Oh, wait. The left has succeeded in making everyone so absolutely paranoid about anything nuclear (except, of course, Saddam and Iran having nuclear weapons), that it's nearly impossible to get the permits for a new plant.</p>

<p>So, maybe we can drill ANWR and off our coast so we get our own oil.</p>

<p>Oh, wait. The environmentalist whackos come out of the woodwork at the very notion of setting up anything like a DRILL platform on the ocean. Too dangerous, they say. Then the rich snobs don't wan't to see them from their patios (You listening, Ms. Streisand?). </p>

<p>So basically, we are going to be under OPEC's thumb (which now includes that complete moonbat and darling of the Left, Hugo Chavez) until we a) develop our own oil resources (which we have), b) start building the latest generation of nuclear plants, which are safer than ever, and c) put all the environmentalists together in a small camp. In Antarctica. Naked.</p>

66

<p>Damn! I was saving up for an almost identical speech.... </p>

<p>The liberals are making us spend even more money (AGAIN) to research the best and already overly researched spent fuel storage area "Yucca" available to date. Incredible!</p>

<p>They want to force us to spend some ungodly amount of money to "guarantee" that not one friggin' particle will escape into the mountainside or underground water system for the next trillion years.</p>

<p>Little time or effort is spent trying to understand or explain the fact that it only takes 300 years to decay that stuff to the same level of radiaoactivity as was mined from the earth to make the fresh fuel in the first place!!! Granted, the form is more poisonous due to highly concentrated heavy metals, but from a radioactive standpoint (what everyone freaks over) the storage already is plenty capable to prevent a problem over reasonable time periods (thousands of years).</p>

<p>Heck, we probably kill more people from second hand cigarette smoke every year than we killed in the entire history of nuclear power construction and operation (excluding bombs of course). Compare it to other industrial age occupational and residual environmental industry hazzards....there is no comparison!! Nuclear wins in all respects when compared to other power sources with large percentage of total need capabilities.</p>

67

<p>Just think....</p>

<p>Electric cars with no pollution AT ALL, either from the tailpipe or the generating station.</p>

<p>It could be done. Now.</p>

<p>But NOOOOOOOOOO...... We have to be in a panic becaus Jane Fonda made a movie once, and.... :rolleyes:</p>

68

<p>Speaking of anti-matter (Fonda, Streisand....Baldwin); If we could just drop a few of them over some real matter in a convenient location (;)), they would go out in a great big bang, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. :D
Of course in reality, it would only take Fonda's anti-matter to anihilate the entire planet.</p>

69

<p>Oh, man.... Don't get me started.....</p>

70

<p>Well, I had steered away from the subject of nuclear power as it really isn't a "new idea". It is true that much more could/should be done to develop safe, reliable & economical nuclear power for the U.S. Here's (partially) what DS wrote recently on the subject (This is a teenager's point-of-view):</p>

<p>"Nuclear fission, that is, the splitting of atoms in order to release immense amounts of energy, will be the primary source of energy of the future. We would be able to replace all coal-burning power plants. One pound of enriched uranium can provide as much energy as one million gallons of gasoline. A properly maintained and well-constructed nuclear power plant is really an environmentalists dream – it releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere than a coal burning power plant. With that much potential it seems irrational to have any apprehensions regarding nuclear power. </p>

<p>However before we invite Chernobyl into our backyard, we must consider the significant problems of nuclear power and the worst-case scenarios. This limitless energy source is found in rocks and seawater, but mining and purifying uranium is not exactly the cleanest process, and wastes are produced as byproducts. The fission of uranium also produces radioactive wastes. As protected from the outside world as they are, however, they remain toxic for centuries and are near impossible to store safely and permanently. These terrible waste products remain the greatest worry of many environmentalists since the biological effects remain both harmful and unpredictable. The threat of a nuclear meltdown remains a sharp concern.</p>

<p>Extremists fear the possibility of nuclear meltdowns disasters similar to the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 and the catastrophic Chernobyl explosion in 1986. The partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island caused widespread panic and increased fears about nuclear power, although no real injuries due to radiation were ever discovered. However, the cleanup was costly and time consuming. The Chernobyl explosion was devastating, scattering tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. It remains one of the greatest human resource disasters of the modern era. These events exemplify the worst-case scenarios and remain as terrible reminders, impeding the expansion of nuclear power in the United States. The future may hold a safer and more reliable way to harness nuclear energy and may yield a society more ready to accept the rewards of a nuclear nation."</p>

<p>If this is an idication of how other 18-yr. olds are thinking, perhaps there is hope for nuclear energy in the future and disentaglement from OPEC.</p>

71

<p>What I don't understand, as you blame the "liberals" for stopping nuclear, etc. [And they can certainly be blamed for a lot.] is this:</p>

<p>Republicans have had the majority Congress for over ten years. Presidency for what? Six years almost. Republicans hold all the keys to government. [Don't forget that well over half the federal judiciary has been appointed by Republican Presidents]</p>

<p>So . . . why haven't the Republicans done something? Anything! to solve the problem.
Want to drill in Alaska? Just do it. [I don't know that this solves the problem in the long run, but in the sh ort term, it might help a bit.]
Want a nuclear plant? Just do it. [I think we should have more nuclear plants.]
The Republicans are the government; they are in control. It's not liberals [presumably Democrats] stopping anything. [The liberals are making us spend even more money . . . .] It's Republicans failing to do anything.
Too easy to blame the liberal "they." [They want us to spend . . . ]
To paraphrase . . .we have met the enemy and it is us. Current Republicans have no fear of being thrown out of office [See Tom Delay] the same as Democrats did for many years. You won't vote for a Democrat because you have been convinced that they are the all-evil and the party mechanism doesn't allow for those that might make the individualized choices that you want.</p>

72

<p>Ha! Clinton took most of the Commercial Nuclear Research funding to universities away! Bush has managed to bring more money back to the educational system for nuclear research and commercialization inspite of the stock market crash of 2000, September 11th, the war in Iraq and Katrina etc.</p>

<p>You figure it out.... It is definitely the Liberals in our area who fight nuclear power (sometime I think just to put legal money in their buddies pockets). It is a straight foward FACT, in Massachusetts anyway.</p>

73

<p>Actually, Congress has done a lot to move the cause of nuclear power forward. Licensing reform and loan guarantees for the first handful of next generation plants built by utilities are a good start. But the investment decisions are not made by the government, but by private utilities. In a deregulated market, a single investment decision of $2 billion and an 8 year construction cycle is a tough one to swallow. However, the incentives in the Energy Bill that was passed last year go a long way to creating a comfort level for executives and board members to make that investment. Look for a decision by a consortium of utilities to move ahead in the next couple of years.</p>

74

<p>Yes, and a handful of site permits are already submitted....finally we will see some Nuclear Power return...before we lose most of our technology base in that industry as the baby boomers retire. Enrollment in nuclear science and engineering at MIT is UP again also...good news for all.</p>

75

<p>So the "liberals" aren't standing in the way of Nuclear power plants?</p>

<p>What about ANWR?</p>

76

<p>It has ALWAYS been the liberals standing in the way of cheap, safe energy!!! :D</p>

77

<p>Well, it's not us Alaskans standing in the way of developing our natural resources...</p>

78

<p>


</p>

<p>Actually, by all accounts, Alaskans are falling all over each other trying to get ANWR opened because they know it means JOBS.</p>

<p>I was unaware of the ongoing efforts to get nuclear back in vogue. It's good to hear.</p>

<p>As for my beloved Republicans, believe me, I don't spare the rod with them, either. IMO, they've been acting entirely too much like cowards on too many things since 1994. I'll take them over the alternative any day, but it doesn't mean I'm 100% happy with THEM, either.</p>

<p>ETA: Woops. Misread your post, Mom. Sorry! :o</p>

79

<p>


</p>

<p>Except for hot air. If we could somehow harness Ted Kennedy, we could light New York for free.</p>

<p>Well, maybe for the cost of a case of Vodka a day....</p>

80

<p>You are so right, as usual, Zaphod. We definitely want development. Why should those in the lower 48, who will never visit Alaska and have no idea of the vastness, have the ability to deny our state's right to economic development because they want to keep the state as a park? </p>

<p>Waiting to be flamed...</p>